Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27287/2016)
FIR No. 264/2015
Police Station Subzi Mandi
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 393/397/302 IPC
Charges framed against accused. Sec. 393/397/302 IPC
State Versus Ajay,
S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o H. No. 276, D-Block,
Kabir Basti, Old Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 04.09.2015
Date of Arguments 24.04.2025
Judgment reserved on 24.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on 26.04.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ajay is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 393/397/302 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on 03.06.2015 at about 03:30 am, outside the corner of Kamla Nehru Park, Barafkhana Chowk, Delhi accused Ajay attempted to commit robbery upon Rakesh and while committing the abovesaid offence, he used a sharp edged stone/dangerous weapon and caused injuries on his person. Further on the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 1 of 52 State Vs. Ajay abovesaid, date, time and place, while attempting to commit robbery with dangerous weapon, accused voluntarily murdered Rakesh.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 03.06.2015 on receiving DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A regarding hitting of a Rickshaw puller near Barafkhana Chowk, PW-24/IO SI Yogender Kumar along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to the spot of incident i.e. Barafkhana at the corner of Kamla Nehru Park, where one blood stained cycle rickshaw was found and blood was also found scattered on the footpath. Thereafter, HC Gyanender and Ct. Bijender also met the IO at the spot and produced accused Ajay and one eyewitness namely Mohd. Irshad. Thereafter PW-24/IO SI Yogender Kumar recorded statement of eyewitness Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D and he along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to Susuruta Trauma Centre after leaving behind Ct. Bijender, HC Gayanender and accused Ajay at the spot, where he collected MLC No. 205719, Ex. PW-7/A of injured, who was found unconscious as he had sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter IO returned to the spot of incident where he made endorsement on the statement of Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-24/A, prepared rukka and got registered the present FIR under Sec. 393/397/307 IPC at PS Subzi Mandi through Ct. Fakir Chand. During investigation, IO got inspected the spot of incident through Crime Team and seized the exhibits i.e. blood lying on footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 2 of 52 State Vs. Ajay stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. IO also prepared site plan of the spot of incident, Ex. PW-2/B at the instance of complainant. Thereafter IO interrogated accused Ajay and arrested him in the present case. He also conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. During investigation, at about 09:25 am, IO received information that the injured had succumbed to injuries during his treatment and thereafter further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-26 Inspector Anant Kiran.
3. After assignment of further investigation, PW-26 IO/Inspector Anant Kiran along with SI Yogender and Ct. Fakir Chand went to the Trauma Centre where he seized clothes of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A and he shifted the death body to Subzi Mandi, Mortuary, where Sh. Arunachal and Sh. Ashok met him and identified the dead body of deceased Rakesh. During investigation IO obtained opinion regarding weapon of offence, sent the exhibits to FSL, got conducted the postmortem on the dead body, seized the viscera of deceased and after postmortem dead body was handed over to father of deceased. IO also got prepared scaled site plan at instance of SI Yogender Kumar through draftsman and recorded statement of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. After obtaining FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 3 of 52 State Vs. Ajay
4. Vide order dated 3 1 . 0 8 . 2 0 1 5 copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 18.09.2015, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec 393/397/302 IPC against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 27 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 HC Karan Singh Yadav, was duty officer who proved copy of DD No. 5A, copy of present FIR, endorsement of rukka and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to the the above-said FIR as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW-1/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Ct. Fakir Chand left with copy of FIR and rukka at about 07:00 am from the PS.
8. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh, deposed that on the intervening night of 02-03.06.2015, he along with HC Gyanender was on patrolling on government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SN-5374 and at about 03:35 pm (word 'pm' seems to be a clerical mistake as the witness has specifically deposed that it was the intervening night of 02/03.06.2025) when they reached at Baraf Khana Chowk, one unknown person stopped them and told them that somebody had hit a person with stone and caused injury and the injured was lying on the patri on Kamla Nehru FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 4 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Park. He further deposed that the abovesaid person disclosed his name as Mohd. Irshad and after receiving the said information, they immediately reached at the spot i.e. patri Kamla Nehru Park and found that a person was lying there in a pool of pillar and the blood was profusely bleeding from his head. He further deposed that they immediately informed to Sugar-I through wireless set and called the PCR. He also deposed that the abovesaid person, Mohd. Irshad came to them and told that the person who had caused the injury to the abovesaid injured with stone had gone towards Hindu Roa Pahadi and thereafter he immediately chased the abovesaid person and he apprehended him from the patri when he was trying to jump over the railing of Kamla Nehru Park. He further deposed that on interrogation, accused disclosed his name as Ajay and eyewitness Mohd. Irshad had identified accused Ajay at the spot and told them that accused Ajay was the same person who had caused injury to the abovesaid injured with stone. He further deposed that IO/SI Yogender reached at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Mohd. Irshad, prepared rukka on the basis of statement of complainant and got the present FIR registered at PS through Ct. Fakir Chand. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO viz. inspection of the spot of incident through Crime Team and seizure of the exhibits i.e. blood lying on footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 5 of 52 State Vs. Ajay preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-2/B by IO at the instance of complainant. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW-2/C to Ex. PW-2/E. This witness has correctly identified the accused and case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that when they reached at the spot except the injured, they did not find any other person. He deposed that Irshad was standing in front of Barafkhana gate and there was distance of 20-30 feet between the place of incident and the place where Irshad was found standing. He also deposed that Mohd. Irshad remained at the spot when they had gone towards Pahadi Hindu Rao to apprehend the accused. He also deposed that IO had recorded the statement of complainant Irshad at the spot by using the motorcycle seat and site plan was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that pullanda items identified by him were not lifted in his presence or that he had disclosed about the same only on seeing the noting on pullanda before opening of the same. He also deposed that no other public person except the complainant was present at the spot nor any other public person had been associated during the investigation at the spot. He also deposed that information of arrest of accused was given to his sister and he did not know who had identified the injured in the hospital.
9. PW-3 Ct. Irshad, was the Photographer at Mobile Crime Team. He proved the seven photographs as Ex. PW-3/1 to Ex. PW-3/F and their negatives, Ex. PW-3/8 to Ex. PW-3/14 of the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 6 of 52 State Vs. Ajay the spot of incident. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached at the spot, local police and some more persons were present but he did not remember the exact details. He also deposed that he had not taken the photographs of the accused or his shoes at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused was not present at the spot at the said time or that due to this reason, he had not taken his photographs and had also not taken photograph of his shoes.
10. PW-4 Mohd. Irshad was the sole eyewitness of the incident as well as complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 03.06.2015 at about 03:00-03:30 am, he was returning to his home after worshiping at the graveyard situated at Malkaganj near Subzi Mandi and when he reached Barafkhana Chowk on patri, Nehru Park, he saw that accused Ajay was searching a rickshaw puller who was sleeping on his rickshaw at the abovesaid patri. He further deposed that in the meantime, rickshaw puller woke up and thereafter accused started quarreling with the abovesaid rickshaw puller and during the said quarrel, accused lifted six corners tiles from the patri and hit the same on the head of the abovesaid rickshaw puller repeatedly. He further deposed that accused gave many blows of the abovesaid tiles on the head of rickshaw puller repeatedly and thereafter rickshaw puller fell down. He further deposed that he saw two police officials coming on bullet motorcycle and he told them about the said incident. He further deposed that accused started running from the spot towards Pahari Hindu Rao Hospital and FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 7 of 52 State Vs. Ajay park and both the abovesaid police officials chased the accused and after sometime, both the abovesaid police officials along with accused Ajay came back to the spot. He further deposed that thereafter police gypsy was called at the spot by the abovesaid police officials and police officials took the injured rickshaw puller to the hospital. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot i.e. seizure of exhibits i.e. six corner blood stained tiles, tiles from patri and blood from rickshaw and proved their seizure memo as Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-2/B by IO at his instance and proved his statement, Ex. PW-4/D. He also proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW-2/C to Ex. PW-2/E. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which this witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Sec. 161, Ex. PW-4/P1 on various points regarding seizure of exhibits as well as case properties by the IO from the spot of incident. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that the abovesaid rickshaw puller was sleeping on rickshaw at a distance of around 20-25 feet from the place where he was standing for taking TSR. He denied the suggestion that there was dark at the spot at that time. He deposed that the road lights were on at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused hitting or causing injuries to the deceased. He further deposed that he had not told both the abovesaid police officials that accused had run towards Pahari Hindu Rao Hospital. He denied the suggestion that police had not apprehended and arrested the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 8 of 52 State Vs. Ajay accused in his presence. He also deposed that he had signed only one document at the spot and had signed the second document at PS. He also deposed that he had not read the contents of above said documents as he was illiterate. He also deposed that the said documents were not read over to him by the police. He denied the suggestion that he had earlier seen accused and he knew him prior to the incident in question. He admitted that exhibits lifted from the spot had not been sealed or kept in the envelopes in his presence, which was produced in the court on that day. He deposed that he had not stated in his statement, Ex. PW-4/D that the person who was taking the search of rickshaw puller had demanded the key of rickshaw from deceased or had said that otherwise he would kill him. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the abovesaid incident. He denied the suggestion that accused was not apprehended in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police or that he had signed the abovesaid documents on the asking of police officials in PS.
11. PW-5 Sh. Roshan Lal was the brother of deceased who identified the dead body of deceased Rakesh vide his statement, Ex. PW-5/A. He also proved handing over memo Ex. PW-5/B of dead body of deceased Rakesh after postmortem, to his father. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
12. PW-6 Ct. Sukender, was Duty Constable at Trauma Centre Hospital. He deposed that on 03.06.2015 one dead body of FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 9 of 52 State Vs. Ajay unknown person was brought to the abovesaid hospital vide MLC No. 2059719. He further deposed that there was injury wound on the head of deceased and blood was oozing out from his head. He also deposed that he intimated PS Subzi Mandi regarding the abovesaid fact and IO visited the Trauma Centre. He also deposed that he handed over the blood stained wearing clothes of deceased to the IO which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was told by the doctor that a dead body had been brought in the hospital at 09:00 am on the said day. He also deposed that there was no cut/torn mark on the abovesaid cloth except baniyan of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he had stated falsely that there was injury wound on the head of deceased and blood was oozing out from his head.
13. PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat, Medical Officer, has proved the MLC of deceased as Ex. PW-7/A. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had mentioned in the abovesaid MLC that the abovesaid injuries were caused by blunt object. He denied the suggestion that the abovesaid injury may be caused by a 'danda'. He also deposed that the abovesaid injured was brought to the hospital at about 04:20 am by Ct. Jagdish Prasad with history of 'Jhagra' (physical assault). He also deposed that he prepared the abovesaid MLC within half an hour after examination of the injured. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-7/A was not prepared by him on 03.06.2015.
14. PW-8 Sh. Ashok, deposed that deceased Rakesh was FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 10 of 52 State Vs. Ajay plying his rickshaw for last 1¼ years prior to the incident on rent. He further deposed that on 03.06.2015 at about 09:00-09:15 am, police officials of PS Subzi Mandi came to his house and inquired him about the deceased. He further deposed that he told them that deceased Rakesh was plying his rickshaw on rent. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on 03.06.2015 at about 09:00 am police officials had visited his house and inquired about the marka 'SY' of rickshaw and he replied that the same belonged to him. He also deposed that deceased was not related to him but was known to him. He also deposed that he had not noted the name of the deceased for 03.06.2015 relating to giving his rickshaw to the deceased on the said date. He denied the suggestion that rickshaw Ex. P-8/1 seen him in the court was not the rickshaw which was given to the deceased or plied by deceased on the day of incident in question.
15. PW-9 HC Keshar Singh, deposed that on 03.06.2015, on direction of IO, he got conducted the medical examination of accused Ajay at Hindu Rao Hospital vide MLC No. 3407/2015 and after medical examination, concerned doctor handed over blood stained white colour shirt, blue colour pant, creame colour sweater and Hawai Chappal of accused along with sample seal to him which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that on 09.06.2015, he again joined the investigation in the present case and on direction of IO, he received weapon of offence from MHC(M) vide RC No. 52/21/15, Ex. PW-9/B and handed over the same to the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 11 of 52 State Vs. Ajay concerned doctor in the mortuary. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the pullandas which were handed over to him by the concerned doctor were prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had sprinkled the blood of the deceased on the clothes of the accused in the PS on the direction of IO after taking the said blood from mortuary. He deposed that all the above said clothes and chappal of accused were having blood stains. He denied the suggestion that the pullanda with respect to clothes and chappal was not prepared in his presence in the hospital by the concerned doctor.
16. PW-10 Ct. Jagdish Prasad, was the PCR official. He deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015, at about 03:14 am, he received a call from S-1 regarding injured person lying near rickshaw, under the rickshaw at Barafkhana. He further deposed that on receiving said information, he reached at the spot and found injured lying near rickshaw and one police motorcycle of yellow colour was also stationed there. He further deposed that blood was oozing out from the head of injured. He also deposed that he immediately took the male injured to HRH where concerned doctor examined him and referred him to Trauma Centre, Hospital as the injuries were grievous and thereafter he took the injured to Trauma Centre. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he reached at the place of occurrence at about 03:45 am. He deposed that except injured nobody was found present at the spot when they reached there. He also deposed that he along with injured reached at the hospital FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 12 of 52 State Vs. Ajay at 03:15 am. He denied the suggestion that he did not take the injured in HRH or Trauma Centre.
17. PW-11 Ct. Fakir Chand, deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015 on receiving DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A regarding causing injury to a Rickshaw puller at Barafkhana Chowk, he along with IO SI Yogender Kumar went to the spot of incident i.e. Barafkhana chowk and found one blood stained cycle rickshaw at the spot and blood was also found scattered at the footpath. He further deposed that HC Gyanender along with Ct. Bijender also met him at the spot who had already caught accused Ajay whose clothes were blood stained. He further deposed that one person namely Mohd. Irshad was also standing near the place of occurrence and he introduced himself as eyewitness of the incident in question. He further deposed that IO recorded statement of eyewitness Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D and he along with IO went to Susuruta Trauma Centre after leaving behind Ct. Bijender, HC Gayanender, Mohd. Irshad and accused Ajay at the spot. He further deposed that IO collected MLC of injured, who was declared unfit for statement by the concerned doctor. He further deposed that IO returned to the spot of incident where IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO viz. inspection of the spot of incident through Crime Team and seized the exhibits i.e. blood lying on FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 13 of 52 State Vs. Ajay footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-2/B by IO at the instance of complainant. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW-2/C, Ex. PW-2/E. He further deposed that on expiring of injured, further investigation of this case was entrusted to Inspector Anant Kiran. He narrated about seizure of blood stained clothes of deceased from hospital, preservation of dead body at Mortuary, medical examination of accused and seizure of blood stained clothes of accused by the IO. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his presence but he did not pay his attention towards the contents of the disclosure statement. He also deposed that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded in presence of complainant Mohd. Irshad. He denied the suggestion that accused was arrested in the present case from his house when he was sleeping in the morning. He also deposed that the site plan was prepared by the IO in his presence but he did not know who had signed the same. He also deposed that the statement of Mohd. Irshad was recorded twice. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at any point of time with the first IO and second IO or that all the writing work including the rukka, disclosure statement, seizure memo, arrest memo etc. were prepared by IO on his own in the PS and FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 14 of 52 State Vs. Ajay obtained his signatures on the same in the PS.
18. PW-12 Sh. Ram Bharose was the father of deceased. He deposed that on 04.06.2015 he reached Delhi and identified dead body of his son Rakesh vide his statement, Ex. PW-12/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body of his son was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW-12/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
19. PW-13 Sh. Arunachal, deposed that on 03.06.2015 police official took him to mortuary, Subzi Mandi where he identified dead body of deceased Rakesh and he immediately informed Sh. Ram Bharose, father of deceased and Sh. Roshan Lal, brother of deceased. He further deposed that on 04.06.2015 Sh. Ram Bharose and Sh. Roshan Lal reached at Mortuary and they identified the dead body of deceased Rakesh in presence of IO. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
20. PW-14 HC Gayanender, deposed that he was on patrolling duty along with PW-2 Ct. Bijender on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015. He deposed on the lines of PW-2 Ct. Bijender. He narrated about apprehension of accused at instance of PW-4/complainant Mohd. Irshad and proved the seizure memo of the exhibits/articles lifted from the spot of incident by the IO, arrest memo, personal search and disclosure statement of accused Ajay. This witness has correctly identified the accused and case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross-
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 15 of 52 State Vs. Ajay examination, he deposed that he had not told the IO in his statement recorded by him that injured had told him that accused had hit stone on his head. He also deposed that they had apprehended the accused at the said time as he was running towards the Hindu Rao Hospital and they brought him back and he was identified by the complainant Mohd. Irshad at the spot. He also deposed that disclosure statement of accused was written by IO in his presence at the spot. He also deposed that site plan of the spot was prepared in his presence at the instance of complainant. He also deposed that they had taken the accused at about 09:00 am from the spot to the PS. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in the present case nor was present at the place of occurrence as stated by him in his examination-in-chief. He also denied the suggestion that accused had been falsely implicated in the present case or that no personal search of accused was conducted in his presence.
21. PW-15 ASI Devender, was the MHC(M). He proved the entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex. PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/F regarding movement of case properties. In his cross-examination he deposed that his statement in the present case was recorded by the IO thrice i.e. on 09.06.2015, 15.06.2015 & 16.06.2015. He admitted that particulars of seals i.e. AK, YK and HRH had not been mentioned in his statement recorded on 09.06.2015 & 15.06.2015. He denied the suggestion that all the exhibits mentioned in register no. 19 were manipulated.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 16 of 52 State Vs. Ajay
22. PW-16 HC Amit Kumar, deposed that on 03.06.2015 he was called to Mortuary, Subzi Mandi by the IO to lookafter the dead body of unknown male person. He further deposed that the dead body was identified by two persons/relatives of deceased, who came at Mortuary with IO and the name of deceased was revealed as Rakesh. He further deposed that on 04.06.2015, after postmortem, he collected sealed wooden box of viscera and sealed envelope containing blood in gauze piece along with two sample seals from the concerned doctor at Mortuary, Subzi Mandi and handed over the same to IO, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A. He further deposed that on 15.06.2015 he again joined the investigation in the present case and on direction of IO, he deposited sealed wooden box of viscera along with sample seal at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 58/21/15 and handed over the acknowledgment of FSL to MHC(M). He also proved the copies of RCs as Ex. PW-15/C to Ex. PW-15/F. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
23. PW-17 ASI Shiv Kumar, was posted at CPCR on 03.06.2015. He proved the PCR Form and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act in this regard as Ex. PW-17/A & Ex. PW-17/B. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any information or that he had deposed falsely.
24. PW-18 SI Anup Kumar, deposed that on 26.06.2015, upon request of IO, PCR call form, Ex. PW-17/A was provided to Ct.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 17 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Harish Kumar and he had issued certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW-17/B. He further deposed that in the certificate, inadvertently, the date has been typed as 26.03.2015, however, the actual date was 26.06.2015. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
25. PW-19 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, was the Draftsman. He proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW-19/A (also exhibited as Ex. PW-22/A). This witness was again examined as PW-22. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited to the spot nor he had taken measurement at the instance of SI Yogender and IO.
26. PW-20 SI Nagender, was the In-Charge of Crime Team. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him alongwith his staff HC Rajbir, finger print proficient and Ct. Irshad, photographer. He proved his detailed report Ex. PW-20/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had conducted the proceedings in half and hour at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the place of occurrence at the alleged date and time.
27. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa, Specialist, Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, has proved the detailed postmortem report No. 1013/15 of deceased Rakesh, as Ex. PW-21/A. He also deposed that cause of death in the present case was 'cranio cerebral damage consequent upon heavy blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature'. He also proved FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 18 of 52 State Vs. Ajay his detailed subsequent opinion about weapon of offence as Ex. PW-21/H. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that pattern of external injuries mentioned in the postmortem report could be sustained by falling of a person towards his face/mouth. He also denied the suggestion that sub scalp buries mentioned in PM report were possible by falling on rough or hard surface.
28. PW-23 ASI Shish Pal was the DD Writer at PS Subzi Mandi. He proved DD No. 9A, Ex. PW-21/D regarding death of person whose information had already been given vide DD No. 5A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
29. PW-24 SI Yogender Kumar was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on 03.06.2015 on receiving DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A, he along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to the spot of incident i.e. Barafkhana at the corner of Kamla Nehru Park, where HC Gyanender and Ct. Bijender met them and produced accused Ajay and at that time complainant Mohd. Irshad was also present there. He further deposed that one blood stained cycle rickshaw was stationed there and blood was also found scattered at the footpath. He further deposed that he recorded statement of eyewitness Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D and thereafter he along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to Susuruta Trauma Centre after leaving behind Ct. Bijender, HC Gayanender and accused Ajay at the spot, where he collected MLC No. 205719, Ex. PW-7/A of injured, who was found unconscious as he had sustained multiple injuries. He further deposed that he returned to the spot of FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 19 of 52 State Vs. Ajay incident where he made endorsement on the statement of Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-24/A, prepared rukka and got registered the present FIR at PS Subzi Mandi through Ct. Fakir Chand. He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the spot viz. inspection of the spot of incident through Crime Team, seizure of exhibits i.e. blood lying on footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw and proved their seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about preparation of site plan of the spot of incident, Ex. PW-2/B at the instance of complainant and proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW-2/C to Ex. PW-2/E. He also deposed that he came to know that injured had expired in the hospital and thereafter further investigation of the present case was entrusted to Inspector Anant Kiran. He also narrated about seizure of clothes of deceased from hospital as well as seizure of blood stained clothes of accused Ajay from Hindu Roa Hospital and proved their seizure memos as Ex. PW-6/A & Ex. PW-9/A. This witness has correctly identified the accused and case properties during his deposition in the court. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached at the place of occurrence at about 03:55 am and found one cycle rickshaw and some blood lying on pavement and rickshaw. He also deposed that Irshad himself told that he had seen the incident. He also deposed that during investigation, he came to know that Mr. FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 20 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Irshad was passerby. He also deposed that the manner in which the accused had attacked on victim showed that it was a pre- planned attack as for only robbery, no one attacks in such a brutal manner. He also deposed that the deceased was not taken to hospital in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Mohd. Irshad was not eye witness to the incident and he was planted by him in the present case. He admitted that no incriminating article/item was recovered from the possession of accused. Voluntarily, he deposed that the clothes of accused were having blood stains. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation of the present case in a fair manner and accused had been falsely implicated in the present case.
30. PW-25 Dr. Rakesh Solanki, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital has proved the MLC of accused Ajay, prepared by Dr. Yogesh Sharma as Ex. PW-25/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the MLC Ex. PW-25/A was not prepared in his presence. He also deposed that the aforesaid clothes of accused and slippers were not seized in his presence. He also deposed that he cannot tell, if the injury sustained by the patient may be caused by falling on earth from front side of body.
31. PW-26 Inspector Anant Kiran was the second IO in the present case. He deposed that on 03.06.2015, on entrustment of further investigation of the present case, he went to the spot of incident i.e. Barafkhana Chowk, Subzi Mandi where HC Gyanender, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Fakir Chand, SI Yogender along with accused Ajay were present. He narrated about proceedings FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 21 of 52 State Vs. Ajay conducted by him viz. seizure of clothes of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A, identification of dead body by Sh. Arunachal and Sh. Ashok at Subzi Mandi Mortuary, seizure of blood stained clothes of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A, obtaining subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence, Ex. PW-21/H and deposit of exhibits at FSL for expert opinion. He also deposed about the conducting of postmortem on the dead body of deceased and dead body identification statements of Sh. Ram Bharose and Sh. Roshan Lal, father and brother of deceased respectively as Ex. PW-12/A & Ex. PW-5/A as well. He also narrated about seizure of viscera of deceased vide seizure memo as Ex. PW-16/A and preparation of scaled site plan. He also proved Form No. 25.35, Ex. PW-26/A. This witness correctly identified accused as well as the case properties during his testimony recorded in the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell if fight took place between accused and injured/deceased all of a sudden. He also deposed that no deadly weapon was got recovered by the accused under his custody. He admitted that there was no criminal case/complaint lodged against the accused prior to the present case. He also admitted that during the course of investigation, he did not find that there was a family enmity or personal enmity between deceased and accused. He also admitted that deceased was under
influence of liquor at the time of scuffling with accused. He denied the suggestion that he knew the eye witness of the present case as he was resident of Subzi Mandi, Delhi. He also denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation of the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 22 of 52 State Vs. Ajay present case in accordance with law. He also denied the suggestion that the eyewitness in the present case was a planted witness.
32. PW-27 Dr. Sweta Sinha, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (Chemistry) has proved her detailed chemical examination report as Ex. PW-27/A. In her cross- examination, she deposed that the exhibits were examined with chemical, microscopic, TLC and instrument GC-HS.
33. During trial, accused has admitted the genuineness of FSL Report No. 2015/D 3976 Bio 1035/15 dated 27.01.2016 as Ex. PX-1, under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
34. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the charges against him. Accused claimed that he was innocent and IO had falsely implicated him in the present case. He further claimed that he used to work as a labourer (loading and unloading of vegetables on the truck) at Azadpur, Subzi Mandi, Delhi from 10:00 pm to 03:00 am. He also claimed that on 03.06.2015, he had arrived at Barafkhana Chowk from Azadpur Subzi Mandi at about 03:00 am and asked the deceased who was sitting on his rickshaw to go his house at the address. He also claimed that the deceased was under influence of liquor. He further claimed that deceased asked for Rs. 50/- for taking him from Barafkhana Chowk to his house. He also claimed that he asked him Rs. 50/- was too much fare then accused replied him in abusive language. He further claimed that he asked FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 23 of 52 State Vs. Ajay deceased not to use abusive language. He also stated that he started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister. He further claimed that he was under influence of liquor and that's why he had fallen on the heap of the cemented tiles twice or thrice and sustained injuries on his head and abrasion on other other parts of his body. He also claimed that he had not caused any bodily injury to the deceased. Accused did not examine any defence witness in the present case.
35. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S. N. Shukla, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Ajay.
36. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He further argued that accused was apprehended just after the incident from a distance situated near the spot of incident. He further argued that the clothes of accused were blood stained. He also argued that the complainant and accused were not known to each other and there is no question of false implication in the present case. He also argued that accused has taken the defence that the deceased sustained the injury by falling on the heap of tiles but there was no heap of tiles and PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has opined that the said injuries were not possible by falling. He further FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 24 of 52 State Vs. Ajay argued that no specific defence has been taken by the accused. He further argued that the IO as well as the other police officials have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted for the offences under which charges have been framed against him.
37. Per Contra Ld. Amicus Curie for accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that offences punishable under Sec. 393/397 IPC are not made out against the accused as PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has not deposed anything about the commission of robbery and nothing was robbed from the deceased and no robbed articles has been recovered from possession of accused. He further argued that PW-10 Ct. Jagdish Prasad has specifically deposed that when he reached at the spot of incident, nobody except the deceased was present there while PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has claimed that he was present at the spot, which shows that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is a planted witness. He also argued that testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is suffering from material contradictions. He also argued that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has admitted that he had FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 25 of 52 State Vs. Ajay signed some document at the PS. He also argued that accused has been named in the FIR but PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad deposed that he came to know the name of the accused at the PS. He also argued that motive has not been proved by the prosecution. He also argued that as per statement of accused recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, the deceased has abused him in name of her mother and sister and it may be considered as a case of grave and sudden provocation. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt, accused should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against him.
38. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/393/397 IPC have been framed accused. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 26 of 52 State Vs. Ajay intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 27 of 52 State Vs. Ajay private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
393. Attempt to commit robbery:-
Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 28 of 52 State Vs. Ajay
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:-
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
39. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Amicus Curie for accused.
40. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is the star witness of the prosecution as he is the only eyewitness of alleged incident and hence his testimony is to be appreciated as per the established principles of appreciation of testimony of sole eyewitness.
41. The first information regarding the incident was received at PS Subzi Mandi vide DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-11/A. The said DD was registered at PS Subzi Mandi on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015 at 03:47 am. As per the contents of DD No. 5A, one rickshaw puller was hit and he was in injured condition (Rickshaw wale ko hit kar diya hai jo injured hai). From the contents of DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-11/A, it is clear that the caller had the knowledge that the deceased was hit by someone. PW-2 FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 29 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Ct. Bijender deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015, he was on patrolling with PW-14 HC Gyanender and when they reached Barafkhana Chowk, one person i.e. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad told that somebody had hit a person with stone and the injured was lying on the patri of Kamla Nehru Park. He also deposed that they reached the spot immediately and found that one person was lying there and blood was profusely bleeding from his head. He further deposed that they immediately informed Sugar-I through Wireless Set and called the PCR at the spot. DD No. 5A was registered on the basis of call made by PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh. PW-14 HC Gyanender has corroborated the version of PW-2 Ct. Bijender with respect to the abovesaid facts. Thus, the prosecution has proved that PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gaynender Singh were told by PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad that the deceased was hit with a stone and on the basis of said information, they informed Sugar-I through wireless call and on the basis of said wireless call, DD No. 5A was recorded.
42. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad deposed that on 03.06.2015 at about 03:00/03:30 am, he was returning to his house after worshiping at graveyard situated at Malkaganj near Subzi Mandi and when he reached Barafkhana Chowk and was waiting for TSR, he saw that accused Ajay was searching a rickshaw puller (deceased), who was sleeping at his rickshaw at the patri. Thus, as per version of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, he was present at the spot of incident at the time of FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 30 of 52 State Vs. Ajay incident. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender have specifically deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015, at about 03:35 pm, they met PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad at the spot of incident. Accused in cross- examination of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has given a suggestion that he was a stock witness of Police. The alleged incident took place at about 03:30 am on 03.06.2015 and as per version of PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyandender, they met the complainant at about 03:35 am. The deceased was alive till 09:00 am on 03.06.2015, whose statement was to be recorded by the IO. In these circumstances, sending rukka at about 05:10 am on the statement of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad by planting him as a stock witness while the victim was alive is unbelievable and no grounds for doing the same by the Police have been brought on record by the accused. Thus, in view of the testimonies of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender and the fact that deceased was alive on 03.06.2015 till 09:00 am, the defence taken by the accused that the PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is a stock witness is without any substance. Thus, this court is of considered opinion that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is not a stock witness and he is eyewitness of alleged incident.
43. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad deposed that in the meantime the rickshaw puller woke up and thereafter accused started quarreling with the said rickshaw puller and during the said quarrel, accused lifted six corner tile from the patri and hit FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 31 of 52 State Vs. Ajay the same on the head of abovesaid rickshaw puller repeatedly. He also deposed that accused gave many blow of abovesaid tile on the head of rickshaw puller repeatedly and thereafter the rickshaw puller fell down. In the cross-examination of this witness, accused has failed to put any dent on his testimony and rather the accused has corroborated the version of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad through his answer to question no. 33 put to him under Sec. 313 Cr.PC in which he has admitted his presence at the spot of incident as well as his conversation and his quarrel with the deceased. Thus, it has come on record that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, accused and deceased were present at the spot of incident at the time of incident and accused had hit the deceased repeatedly on his head with six corners tile.
44. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad deposed that in the meantime, he saw two police officials coming of bullet motorcycle and he told them about the incident and at that time accused started running from the spot towards Pahari Hindu Rao Hospital and Park. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.06.2015, while they were on patrolling on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SN-5374, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad met them and told them that somebody had hit a person with a stone and caused injuries on the person of rickshaw puller and the said injured was lying on the patri of Kamla Nehru Park. He further deposed that he along with HC Gyanender reached at the spot i.e. patri Kamla Nehru Park and saw that one person was lying and blood was profusely FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 32 of 52 State Vs. Ajay bleeding from his head. He further deposed that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad told them that the accused had gone towards Hindu Rao Pahari. PW-14 HC Gyanender has also corroborated the version of PW-2 Ct. Bijender in this regard. Accused has failed to create any doubt with respect to the testimonies of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh with respect to the abovesaid fact. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh, it has come on record that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad had witnessed the incident and just thereafter PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh reached there and found the deceased there from whose head blood was oozing showing that the incident had just happened and the accused has ran away towards Pahari Hindu Rao.
45. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh deposed that he immediately chased the accused Ajay and apprehended him on the patri when he was trying to jump over the railing of Kamla Nehru Park. PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh has also corroborated the version of PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh by deposing that he and Ct. Bijender chased the said person by proceedings towards Hindu Rao Pahari and apprehended accused on the parti of Kamla Nehru Park, Hindu Rao Pahari and after that they brought the accused at the spot where PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad identified him. Accused has not taken the plea of alibi and rather he has admitted his presence at the spot of incident in an answer to question no.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 33 of 52 State Vs. Ajay 33 put to him under Sec. 313 Cr.PC.
46. PW-19 Inspector Mahesh Kumar (also examined as PW-22) has proved the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-19/A prepared by him at instance of SI Yogender Kumar and Inspector Anant Kiran. As per the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-19/A, deceased was sleeping on his cycle rickshaw at point 'A' and he fell down at point 'B'. The blood stained stone tile was found at point 'C'. All the abovesaid points are very near to each other. As per the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-19/A, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad was standing at point 'D' which was at a distance of 1675 cm (16.75 meters) from the spot of incident and there is nothing between point A, B, C on one side and point D on the other side and the things can be seen clearly point 'D'. In the cross- examination of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, a suggestion has been given to PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad that there was dark at the spot at that time which has been denied by the witness and he has further deposed that road lights were on at that time. In the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-19/A, electrical pole with sodium light have been shown near the spot of incident. Thus, it has been brought on record through the evidence that there was proper light at the spot of incident and the spot of incident was visible from the spot where PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad was standing.
47. Accused has taken the defence that the PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad was not present at the spot of incident and he is a planted witness. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 34 of 52 State Vs. Ajay specifically deposed that he had seen the incident and he was present at the spot of incident. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender Singh have also corroborated the version of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad that he was present at the spot of incident. However, PW-10 Ct. Jagdish, who was PCR official and took the injured/deceased to the hospital, in his cross-examination has deposed that except injured nobody was found present at the spot when he reached there. He also deposed that when he reached at the spot he found injured lying near the rickshaw and one motorcycle of police of yellow colour was also stationed at the spot. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender have specifically deposed that PCR took the injured when they had gone to apprehend the accused. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender had chased the accused on their foot leaving their official motorcycle at the spot of incident. Thus, the injured was taken to the hospital by PW-10 Ct. Jagdish Prasad in absence of PW-2 Ct. Bijender and PW-14 HC Gyanender. Just after the injured was taken to the hospital, PW-24 IO/SI Yogender Kumar along with PW-11 Ct. Fakir Chand reached at the spot of incident. PW-24 SI Yogender Kumar as well as PW-11 Ct. Fakir Chand have specifically deposed that when they reached at the spot of incident, they met with PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh, PW-14 HC Gyanender, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad and accused Ajay at the spot of incident. PW-24 IO/SI Yogender Kumar deposed that he recorded statement of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D at the spot of incident itself. Thus, all the abovesaid FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 35 of 52 State Vs. Ajay witnesses have deposed about the presence of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad at the spot of incident. PW-10 Ct. Jagdish Prasad in his examination-in-chief and his cross-examination has mentioned different time of his reaching at the spot of incident. There is strong possibility that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad may have been present at point 'D' shown in scaled site plan, Ex. PW-19/A from where he had given the information to PW-2 Ct. Bijender and PW-14 HC Gyanender and PW-10 Ct. Jagdish Prasad may not have seen him. In view of testimonies of PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, PW-11 Ct. Fakir Chand, PW-14 HC Gyanender and PW-24 SI Yogender Kumar, this court is of considered opinion that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad was present at the spot of incident at the time of incident as well as thereafter.
48. PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat has proved the MLC of deceased, Ex. PW-7/A. He deposed that on 03.06.2015, one unknown injured male aged about 35 years was brought to the Casualty of Trauma Centre by PCR official Ct. Jagdish Prasad. PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat has mentioned number of injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh in the MLC, Ex. PW-7/A. In his cross-examination, he specifically deposed that the said injuries were caused by blunt object. He denied the suggestion that said injuries were possible by a danda. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has proved the postmortem report of deceased, Ex. PW-21/A. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has mentioned 14 different injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh. He further deposed that the cause of death in this case was 'cranio cerebral damage FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 36 of 52 State Vs. Ajay consequent upon heavy blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature'. Since the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the said injury has been caused by accused intentionally, the case of the prosecution falls within clause thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC. He has also proved his subsequent opinion report, Ex. PW-21/H about weapon of offence i.e. cemented brick/stone and has specifically deposed that he was of considerate opinion that 'cranio cerebral damage' has mentioned in the postmortem report was possible by the examined weapon. The said cemented brick/stone, Ex. P-5 in blood stained condition was seized by the PW-24 IO/SI Yogender Kumar from the spot of incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has specifically deposed that sub-scalp bruise was present at frontal and bilateral parietal region depressed communicated fracture of right pariteo temporal bone and right frontal bone shown linear fracture and linear fracture of left temporal bone. He also deposed that base of the scalp was found fracture and interior cranial fossa and at left side of middle cranial fossa. In his cross- examination, PW-24 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has specifically denied the possibility of external injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh by falling towards face/mouth at his own. He also deposed that the injuries mentioned in the PM report were not possible by fall on hard surface as the pattern of injuries and severity of head injury with depressed communated fracture of right parieto temporal bone as mentioned in the PM report are possible by heavy weight thrown on the head and were not possible by FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 37 of 52 State Vs. Ajay simple fall on hard surface. Accused has not taken any defence with respect to the injuries caused to the person of deceased Rakesh in the cross-examination of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad. However, in answer to question no. 33 put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused was taken the defence that deceased was under influence of liquor and he had fallen on the heap of cemented tiles twice or thrice and had sustained injuries on his head and abrasions on other parts of body. PW-27 Dr. Savita Sinha has proved her viscera report, Ex. PW-27/A and has deposed that the Ex. 1C was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 80.00 mg per 100 ml of blood. Thus, a part of defence taken by the accused that deceased was drunk is correct. PW-3 Ct. Irshad who was photographer at Mobile Crime Team has proved photographs Ex. PW-3/1 to Ex. PW-3/7 along with negatives Ex. PW-3/8 to Ex. PW-3/14. In the said photographs, one cycle rickshaw can be seen stationed on the clear footpath and the blood can be seen on the seat of rickshaw as well as all around on the footpath just below the said rickshaw which shows that the alleged incident had taken place on the rickshaw itself. In the photographs, no heap of cemented tile can be seen. Only three tiles Ex. P-3 to P-6 were found at the spot which were seized by the IO. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is without any substance and hence cannot be relied upon. Moreover, as per the opinion of PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat and PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa, the said injuries were not possible by falling and such multiple injuries were possible with the cemented brick/stone Ex. P-5. Thus, the prosecution has successfully FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 38 of 52 State Vs. Ajay proved that the death of deceased Rakesh was caused by accused by using cemented brick/tile, Ex. P-5.
49. PW-25 Dr. Rakesh Solanki has proved MLC of accused Ajay, Ex. PW-25/A. As per MLC of accused, Ex. PW-25/A, he was brought to the Casualty of the Hospital by PW-9 HC Keshar Singh with abrasions on left hand fourth finger and right hand fifth finger. Thus, there were abrasions on the fingers of accused Ajay which have not been explained by him. In his cross- examination PW-25 Rakesh Solanki deposed that he cannot tell the injury sustained by the patient (accused) may be caused by falling on the earth from front side of body. Even if, it is presumed that accused had sustained the said injuries by falling on earth from front side, he must have explained as to on which date, time and place and under which circumstances, he had fallen on earth and had sustained the said injuries. Accused has not taken this defence either in the cross-examination of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad and in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. Thus, in these circumstances, there is strong possibility that accused had sustained that injuries in his fingers while hitting the deceased Rakesh with the cemented stone/brick/tile, Ex. P-5.
50. As per the prosecution story, the clothes of accused were blood stained at the time of commission of offence. The clothes of deceased Rakesh were also blood stained and PW-24 IO/SI Yogender Kumar had also lifted the blood stained exhibits from the spot of incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. PW-9 HC FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 39 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Keshar Singh deposed that after medical examination of accused, the doctor handed over the blood stained clothes of accused i.e. white colour shirt (kameez), blue colour pant and cream colour sweater/jacket and hawai chappal duly sealed with the seal of HRH, which was handed over by him to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. This witness correctly identified the clothes and chappal collectively exhibited as Ex. P-10/1. PW-26 IO/Inspector Anant Kiran also deposed that after returning from the hospital, HC Keshar Singh handed over clothes of accused to him which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. He also deposed that he sent the exhibits to the FSL through Ct. Amit. PW-16 HC Amit Kumar (then Ct.) deposed that on 15.06.2015 on direction of IO, he took nine sealed pullandas and one wooden box containing viscera along with sample seal from Malkhana for depositing the same at FSL Rohini and he deposited all the exhibits except the sealed wooden box containing viscera due to shortage of documents and same was deposited by him on 16.06.2015. He proved the relevant entries of Register No. 19 & 21 in this regard exhibited as Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E & Ex. PW-15/F. He also deposed that no one had tempered the abovesaid exhibited while these were in his custody. Thus, the prosecution has proved the safe custody of exhibits from the point of seizure to the point of opening at the FSL and accused has failed to create any doubt regarding any kind of tempering on the said exhibits. Accused has admitted the FSL Report Ex. PX-1 under Sec. 294 Cr.PC. As per FSL Report, Ex. PX-1, blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2, 3, FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 40 of 52 State Vs. Ajay 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d & 9 i.e. gauze cloth piece, gauze cloth piece, cemented tile, piece of raxin, cemented stone, cemented tile, pant, shirt, baniyan, underwear, jeans pant, shirt, jacket, chappals, gauze cloth piece containing blood of deceased Rakesh and the said blood was human blood. The blood group on exhibits 1, 2, 8a, 8b & 9 was found to be 'A' group while no reaction took place in the other exhibits to ascertain the blood. Thus, the blood was found on the clothes of accused as well as deceased. IO has not got conducted the DNA test for the reasons best known to him. Thus, the abovesaid exhibits have corroborated the evidence of the prosecution and accused has failed to explain as to how blood was found on his clothes.
51. As per the case of prosecution, accused attempted to commit robbery on person of deceased Rakesh and at the time of committing robbery he used dangerous weapon i.e. stone and had caused injuries on his person. As per the complaint given by PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D, accused was searching the shirt of deceased and on this the deceased Rakesh woke up and thereafter accused threatened deceased Rakesh for handing over the key of rickshaw otherwise he will kill him and on refusal to handover the key, accused hit the deceased Rakesh with the stone. However, in his examination-in-chief, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has only deposed that accused was searching a rickshaw puller and in the meantime the rickshaw puller woke up and accused started quarreling with him. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has not deposed that accused took any property from possession of deceased Rakesh FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 41 of 52 State Vs. Ajay or he tried to take any property from him. In his cross- examination, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has specifically deposed that he do not know whether somebody was demanding the key of rickshaw from the deceased or not and he had not heard that the rickshaw puller had denied to give key of his rickshaw to the accused. He also deposed that he had not stated in his statement Ex. PW-4/D that the person who was taking search of rickshaw puller had demanded the key of rickshaw or otherwise he would kill him. As per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, accused had hit the deceased repeatedly on his head and he had fallen down on the ground. In these circumstances, the accused had opportunity to commit the robbery of cycle rickshaw as the keys of rickshaw were found by the IO under the seat of rickshaw itself or he may have robbed any other article of rickshaw puller/deceased Rakesh. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh and PW-14 HC Gyanender have apprehended the accused and no robbed article was recovered from his possession. PW-24/IO SI Yogender Kumar has also not deposed regarding the recovery of any robbed articles. From the testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, it is not clear whether the quarrel between accused Ajay and deceased Rakesh took place due to robbery or some other reasons. Accused has taken the defence that the quarrel between him and deceased Rakesh took place on the issue of fare of rickshaw which was excessive. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 393/397 IPC against the accused.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 42 of 52 State Vs. Ajay
52. Ld. Amicus Curie for accused has argued that prosecution has failed to proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 393/397 IPC and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of offence and the benefit of same should be given to accused. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has specifically deposed that accused was searching the deceased and hence robbery was the motive and even if it was not so, the quarrel had taken place on the point of searching. He also argued that accused in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, has admitted that quarrel between him and accused took place on the issue of fare of rickshaw. He also argued that the fact that quarrel had taken place between accused and deceased have been duly proved by the prosecution and hence the motive which may be in the mind of accused need not to be specifically proved.
53. Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive is the force that moves a man to do a particular work. Generally there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant. The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof, however, it is an corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 43 of 52 State Vs. Ajay consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
54. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 SCC 654 observed as under:-
"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relies upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 44 of 52 State Vs. Ajay mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."
55. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233 observed as under:-
"7.... The motives may be minor but nonetheless they did provide occasion for attack on the deceased by the appellants. That apart, even in absence of motive, the guilt of culprit can be established in a given case if the other evidence on record is trustworthy in the absence of proof of motive has never been considered as fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found reliable".
56. In the present case, PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad deposed that accused was searching the deceased but the ingredients of offence of attempt to commit robbery and the offence of commission of robbery have not been proved by the prosecution. Contrary to this, accused in answer to question no. 33 put to him under Sec. 313 Cr.PC has stated that deceased Rakesh asked for Rs. 50/- fare from him and when he said that it was too much, deceased replied him in abusive language and he started abusing him in name of his mother and sister and he was under influence of liquor. PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad, FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 45 of 52 State Vs. Ajay who is the eyewitness of the alleged incident, has specifically deposed that accused started quarreling with deceased and thereafter he repeatedly hit him on his head with a six corner tile. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the factum of quarrel between accused and deceased and hitting by accused with tile/stone on the head of deceased repeatedly. The present case is not based on circumstantial evidence and rather it is based on ocular evidence of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad. The testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is clear, cogent and trustworthy and in these circumstances proving of motive of commission of offence which lies in the mind of perpetrator by the prosecution is not necessary, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh (supra) and Raghubir Singh (supra).
57. Ld. Amicus Curie for accused has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad and he has failed to depose about the seizure of the raxin seat of rickshaw, key of the lock of rickshaw and he has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW-4/P1 recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad has specifically deposed about the alleged incident and some minor omissions with respect to the proceedings are bound to happen in any case and these cannot be considered fatal to the case of the prosecution as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
58. In Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgement titled as FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 46 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh cited as (1999) 8 SCC 649 observed as under:-
" 24. When an eye witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant detail. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. But Court should bear in mind that it is only when the discrepancy in the evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of version that the Court is justify in Jettisoning his evidence. But true serious view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of any incident (either as within the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
25. It is common practice in the Trial Courts to make out contradictions from a previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-
examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in the evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of Evidence Act provides for impeaching the credit of evidence by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of Section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of witness."
59. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgement titled as Achara Parambath Pradeepan and Ors. Vs. State of FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 47 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Kerala 2007 (1) Crimes 54 SC has held that "it would be too much to expect to any person to say anything in his statement before the police. To see a person by face is one thing but to know him by name is a different. Some improvements in the testimony of witness could not lead to rejection thereof in its entity".
60. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgement titled as Waman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 Cr.L.J 4827 (SC) has held that "the testimony of the witness cannot be disbelieved merely because of some omission in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the evidence before the Court".
61. In the present case, there are no contradictions in the testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad regarding the alleged incident. There are only minor omissions and contradictions which are not material. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to the facts of this case in judgments titled as 'Rammi @ Rameshwar (Supra), Achara Parambath Pradeepan and Ors. (Supra) & Waman (Supra)', this court is of considered opinion that such minor contradictions as argued by the Ld. Amicus Curie are bound to happen in a criminal trial and hence such minor contradictions do not affect the case of the prosecution.
62. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 48 of 52 State Vs. Ajay arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
63. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 49 of 52 State Vs. Ajay howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 50 of 52 State Vs. Ajay supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
64. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
65. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
66. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad is witness of sterling quality as his version is natural and he has also withstood the test of cross-examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-4/complainant Sh.
FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 51 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Mohd. Irshad is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, medical and scientific evidence on record and the circumstances.
67. The prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC against accused Ajay beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 393/397 IPC against accused Ajay beyond reasonable doubt.
68. Accordingly, accused Ajay is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. He is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 393/397 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA Date: KHARTA on 26th day of April, 2025 2025.04.26 15:17:37 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:26.04.2025 FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 52 of 52 State Vs. Ajay